new questions being raised about the late-night crash after he refused to talk to police after the third time. happy news today for chelsea clinton. all the rumors about her getting married last summer, they were wrong. on thanksgiving day, she and her long time beau decided to get engage engaged. the big day, next summer. i'm andrea mitchell, live in washington. the president gave his orders for afghanistan. this hour, he's holding a teleconference with british prime minister, gordon brown. he notified the house of commons that he will be sending 500 more british troops to afghanistan. that brings the total british commitment to 500. the afghan war is unpopular with the british public. "the new york times,"

washington correspondents joins us now. elisabeth, first to you. what are we extecting from the president, the pentagon and allies? >> the pentagon is expecting about 30,000. they will -- deployment orders will follow immediately. it's expected they will come from ft. campbell and ft. drum in new york. most of them will go, probably, to the south of afghanistan to heldman province and kandahar and the east. there will be trainers for afghan security forces. >> jeff, in terms of the composition and reassurances of pakistan, what are we hear frg the president to assure them they are not being abandoned. it's a big part of the story.

>> it is a big part of the story. it's the biggest audience president obama has to reach tomorrow. on one hand, he will try to assure americans i'm sending more troops as a means to an end, as a beginning to the end of the war. at the same time, he has to reassure them the u.s. will not pull out. a lot of conversations will be held in conversations. look for the majority of his message to be to the american audience. there has to be behind the scenes work as well to the pakistani's. >> will the pentagon, the uniformed leaders will pleased with the announcement? is it enough troops? is the composition correct? does he focus -- will he focus too much on the exit strategy for the military? >> we have to see what he says tonight. i think everybody is going to be

apprehensive about setting deadlines. 36 months to show substantial change in the ground situation. 30,000 troops plus allies, let's say 5,000 a huge jolt of energy to stan mcchrystal and the nay know forces. >> in terms of the general's roll out, how are they managing notification. >> what they are doing is president obama making phone calls to top officials as well as allies and the pentagon officials. the beginning of the roll out with the leaders on capitol hill is coming tuesday afternoon, not long before he travels to give the speech to west point. they don't want to give the information in advance to leaders. it will leak out. wednesday, there's going to be an all-out explanation, a lot of

advisors coming forward, explaning why it's necessary, why this step is necessary and why it's a part of the war on terror, even if we don't hear the phrase specially. >> general, is it clear nato is doing enough? are we getting enough commitment from the nato leaders? they have been reluctant, the dutch are talking about pulling out. you have 500 troops from great britain, which is a political cost to gordon brown, but not big numbers. >> yeah. the objective answer is no, of course not. nato countries have more population than the united states does. huge militaries. they are almost unusable. the rules of engagement are very constra constrained. only the brits have gotten in there with good training, leadership and willing to take casually. the canadians are taking out. the dutch are coming out. the german's hopefully, are

staying in, they and the french. >> savannah guthrie joining us from the white house. what is the latest you are hearing on the numbers of troops? >> reporter: my best information now is the number the president will ask for in his speech is 30,000 additional troops with a real emphasis on training up afghan security forces so they can take over. the notion being there could be a beginning of combat troops as early as 200. the real emphasis the training up the afghan security forces. as i said, all indications are the president will ask for 30,000 troops tomorrow night. a caveat, this is a moving target. it's been known to change and can change, even in the final hours before the big speech tomorrow night. >> elisabeth and senator lugar

was saying yesterday, let me show you a bit about what he's talking about, which is that we should be focused more on afghanistan and less on health care in terms of cost. let's watch. >> the war is terribly important. jobs and our economy are terribly important. i would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the way we put cap and trade and climate change and talk about the essentials, the war and money. >> elisabeth, how much is the cost of this engagement? we're talking $1 million per troop. >> per troop, right. >> we are talking a huge amount of money. it's been promised -- it was always promised by barack obama it would be on budget, not off budget. how are they responding to the suggests from david from the left about a war task. this is the occasion to slowdown

health care, which is something republicans want to do. >> i think a war tax is a nonstarter at the white house. i think, all though obama said he would no longer, you know, finance wars off the books as the bush administration did, in other words, coming back to congress when there was a need for more money. my guess is they would argue there is an extraordinary circumstance, i need the money for the troops, this is a one-time deal. they have to have the money. it's going to cost close to $30 billion, $40 billion a year for the extra troops. that's how they will explain it. he did have the cost of the war in his last budget. he did make good on that. >> i don't know. i think the supplemental is going to have to include afghanistan this year. my guess is you're going to see a significant increase in the cost. >> go ahead, elisabeth.

>> i know the pentagon was planning on $40 billion to $50 billion supplemental for the year. so, i don't know how much that would include -- i said that, of course. it does include afghanistan, the supplemental for the coming year. >> right. >> in terms of the president's foreign policies, savannah, there have been a number of setbacks. the latest, iran, defieing the u.s., the whole policy, the obama palsy of engagement. how much concern is there that they are now facing the likelihood of a showdown with iran at the united nations, which has never gone well when push comes to shove in getting the allies on board? >> it's true. what they are trying to emphasize is what they have done so far has enabled them to build a consensus. it's where the rubber meets the road. they have tried to lay the ground work for successfully

with the russian president than the chinese president. they have always tried to say this engagement has two goals, if we can't get it dip lamatically controlled. there's been clear indication since the asia trip, that was the road they were most likely to take. this is where the whole engagement process is put to the test and whether or not they can build this international consensus. here, they would make the argument because we have exhausted diplomatic means, iran has shown itself to not be receptive to a reasonable offer, in shipping the uranium to russia, it will help them build a consensus around it. this is not a fruitful path in the past. >> okay. general, breiefly, we are talkig about west point. you know that venue very well.

he's going to be received how in west point from the service academy? >> he will be thrilled. 4,000 young people. they will love him being there. a popular figure in the armed forces. it's a good venue. it will give a gravity of pl platform they will take into account. i'm glad he's going up there. >> okay. thank you so much. savannah guthrie. coming up, the seven stories president obama may not want you to know. john harris joining us next on "andrea mitchell reports." (announcer) we call it the american renewal. because we believe in the strength of american businesses. ge capital understands what small businesses need to grow and create jobs. today, over 300,000 businesses rely on ge capital for the critical financing they need to help get our economy back on track.

the american renewal is happening. right now. what doctors recommend for arthritis pain... in your hands... knees... and back. for little bodies with fevers... and big bodies on high blood pressure medicine. tylenol works with your body in a way other pain relievers don't... so you feel better... knowing doctors recommend tylenol more than any other brand of pain reliever.

but we're also in the showing-kids- new-worlds business. and the startup-capital- for-barbers business. and the this-won't- hurt-a-bit business. because we don't just work here. we live here. these are our families. and our neighbors. and by changing lives we're in more than the energy business we're in the human energy business. chevron.

dubai part of the united arab emirate s has its own

credit crunch. the investment arm asked for a delay in repaying $60 billion in debt. steve wiseman, dubai has been a lavish, non-oil revenue, the playground of the region. this is the place with indoor ski slopes and the extraordinary biggest, tallest, and greatest and all the rest. what will be the impact? the world economy, which is what we all care about. >> the world economy is holding its breath watching this and so far, seems to be a stable situation. as we grow out of the global financial crisis, there are a lot of vulnerable places.

eastern europe especially and those places are watching with special concern. so far, it seems to be stabilizing, as you say. $60 billion in debt here. that's a very small amount when you think of the trillions of dollars globally that have been hard hit. it looks like the central bank will make good on its pledge to bail out dubai world. they spend on gaudy resorts and they have been the perpetrator and the victim of this acid bubble crisis that's afflicted the whole global economy. there's a lot of shot and freud. it's not an arabic term, going on here. the other arab countries, much more conservative have always looked at dubai as a little risky and also a little on the edge ethically and morally in terms of traditional islamic

law. >> in fact, it wasn't entirely clear that they were going to make good or stand by dubai because of that tension, but other over the weekend, we heard the emirates would make good on the debts. >> they preferred not to step in. we are talking a confederation of seven emirates or principalities, wealthy, but little. instead of operating on its own to do the bail-out, went through the governing central bank of the whole federation. they said we will step up to the plate, if necessary. they have not come up with numbers as it gets re-negotiated. >> we are joined by erin burnett in dubai. the fall out from this, you know the area well, one interesting thing you have mentioned and i've been hearing from sources

inside the administration is they are not entirely unhappy about the pressure on dubai because it's been a holding area for iranian money once iran found difficulty in investing in european banks and pressure from the united states. >> reporter: it's an interesting story here. you always think about 75% of the real estate is owned by foreigners, that's a percent of the people that live here are foreigners. the breakdown, 10% of the real estate is owned by iranians. you can see a lot of iranian business done here. it's the hub for the region. a lot of businesses and companies that easter looks bad or its illegal to do business in iran or americans go through dubai. it's a big transit point, is the way to say it. it appears they want to if i would nuclear plants of its own

and putting out a bid of $40 billion. they want to be closer to the u.s. and take more control over dubai. the u.s. supports dubai. that could be a price dubai pays to force that out to get the bail out money. it's an interesting angle to the whole story. >> it is. as you point out, dubai has been one of the last places where iranian money could sit and make money and make profits. the europeans, the germans have been tough more recently. all this under pressure, security council pressure as iran has backed off in commitments to the international community. so, putting pressure on dubai to finally come in compliance with what the west, the u.s. wants. it could be an interesting price they have to pay for the bailout they get. >> reporter: what's interesting is, one thing that's interesting is when you look at the list of

lenders to dubai, it may have stuck out, royal bank of scotland, there weren't that many american banks that high on the list. part of the reason for that, a lot of the companies here do business for iran. american banks for hesitant to do that lending. they ended up being lucky to not have that loan exposure. >> it is interesting. there's been pressure from the last year and a half or so to pull back for that reason. thanks so much. finally, steve, before we move on, when we talk about iran and the possibility of more u.n. action, it's a very slow process. >> it's a very slow process. as you pointed out, it's one of the unsung and uncelebrated successes that came from the bush administration. this tremendous pressure on the european financial institutions

to cease doing business with iran. but, the financing that iran needed has migrated to the gulf. it's also migrated to east asia and southeast asia. you are going to see a big push in the next phase. the hold over from the bush administration has been leading the charge. there's been a lot of economic diplomacy with the financial institutions in the gulf and southeast asia to join in once the security council authorizes it. >> thanks so much. s still ahead, the investigation toin tiger woods late night crash intensifies today. if you have a question or comments about the stories we are talking about today, follow me on twitter, go to twitter.msnbc.com. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc.

somewhere in america, there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, 69,000 people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. female valve: hahahaha...i am sfx:strong like the ox.ght.

i crush you like tiny clown car. because you are... ...clown, yes? female valve: come, you hit me again and i break you. male valve: oh, you messed with wrong pipe now, car. ha, ha trust me...i have to live with her. announcer:accidents are bad. but geico's good with guaranteed repairs through auto repair express. if toyota gets credit for being the most fuel efficient car company in america, well, then how do you explain all this? chevy malibu, cobalt, silverado, and the all-new equinox. compare them to anyone. may the best car win. the sparkly flakes. the honey-baked bunches!

the magic's in the mix. my favorite part? eating it. honey bunches of oats. taste the joy we put in every spoonful. honey bunches of oats. we call the bunches in honey bunches of oats the prize in the box. well, now there's a prize inside the prize. pecans! pecans! baked into crunchy oat bunches. taste the delicious surprise in every spoonful. new honey bunches of oats with pecan bunches. beautiful. we give you peace of mind. i have diabetes like a lot of us here, so we understand. compassion. patience. you'll find it anytime you call. our customers say we're number one. plus, they're grateful we're located in the us, where we also manufacture... the accu-chek aviva meters and test strips. americans caring for americans. that makes us proud. accu-chek customer care born in the usa.

the president has a big agenda today. his decisions will have long lasting effects around the world. is his ability to control the world faltering? "seven stories o bbama doesn't want told." he joins us from politico.com. thank you very much. what are some of the stories the president doesn't want told? >> well, look, start off saying barack oba barack obama's strength, people looked at him and saw the world on his terms. the fundamentally believed obama's version is idealistic, but practical, creative young leader. they never bought the republican version of barack obama, which was he was inexperienced chicago

paw what was not up for the job. what i see happening in washington is some competing narratives, ones that are not flattering and on o bbama's ter are starting to take root in washington, including among the home team. people who are democrats, fundamentally wish obama well and were somewhat disappointed by him. one of the narratives is he thinks he's playing with monopoly money. many think he doesn't stand for fiscal discipline. if that perception takes root, it will lead to more in virginia as we saw this month. another one is that obama may not be an american exceptionalist. he sees america as one country among many countries in the world. traditionally, president's thought america had a unique

sense of power and it should exercise that power. the recent asia trip led to a narrative that barack obama doesn't think that or act upon that belief. >> the fact is, one of the things you point out, he's too much in love with himself. is there a sense of very high self-regard in ego. is that what you are suggesting? >> in certain washington circles, this is true. i don't know that narrative spread to the rest of the country, yet. we have had writers who refer to president obama as mr. spok, the fellow from "star trek" who lives in a world of logic, not his gut or heart. there's a feeling that obama tends to look at the complex problems as though he's solving a rubic's cube and doesn't have

a human sense. bill clinton was good at conveying that. president obama, so far, less so. >> let me ask you about the coverage story about joe biden. it's unusual, the no drama obama white house. not wanting to get their head too far above the profile. here, you have a very lengthy coverage story on the vice president. what's your reaction to that? >> well, i think, and no one is surprised, a no drama o bbama white house. this white house, when it comes to reporters profiling members of the white house staff, it's quite transparent. this is the fifth or sixth new york times magazine profile of obama that we have seen. so, i think the obama people, excuse me, the biden people were belized. biden may be the most influential after dick cheney.

it's true, they are spending a lot of time shining the spotlight on themselves which isn't what serves presidents well. reading you one of the quotations from the article. there's at least one direct quote from vice president biden where he talks about afghanistan. >> i'm quoting from joe biden to james, the author of this extensive interview. it is true that joe biden has given this white house the foreign policy credentials, perhaps that a new, young inexperienced president needed. what role has he played in the

debate over afghanistan. he wanted the low end of the deployment. how is he going to fare when the speech emerges tomorrow night. >> the indications we are getting are that he may have been a respected voice in the argument within the obama white house. but, he didn't win the debate at the end of the day. president obama is going forward with something that's going to more closely approximate what general mcchrystal was asking for, a significant infusion of troops, not as many as he wanted. he didn't take the biden argument, which was really, to scale back and redefine the u.s. submitment in afghanistan. >> john harris, from politico, thank you very much. joining us now is evan bayh. senator, thank you very much. senator from indiana. let's talk about the president's speech tomorrow night and what you expect, what we have been told to expect is 30,000 plus or

minus troops. the real story is the relationship with pakistan and the composition of troops. what are you looking for tomorrow? >> we should begin by reminding people why we are there. it's been eight long years since 9/11. 3,000 americans lost their lives in addition to the damage done to this country. he needs to start by reminding people what the stakes are. second secondly, it's a very complex situation. he received divided council. i think he needs to lay out why he's using the strategy he is. why it gives us the best chance of success and to lay out how we are going to extra kate ourselves from afghanistan. he needs to do those three things. >> you are on the armied services committee. you represent indiana. unemployment, elkhart , indiana.

what do they want to hear to assure them why we are here. >> we would rather spend our money here at home. we were attacked by a terrorist organization with a safe haven in afghanistan. they don't want to see that happen, again. laying out why it's our best chance for ultimately leading afghanistan in an acceptable way. >> where do you stand on the war tax or the suggestion to focus on jobs in afghanistan and not other domestic issues. >> there's not going to be a war tax. i don't think it's going to happen. as you know, i'm concerned about the fiscal situation in the country. it has to be addressed. we have to start with spending and not raise taxes. if you are going to raise revenue, we have to wait before we consider a step like that.

there's a debate within the democratic party. i don't think it's going to happen at this time. number two, i have tremendous respect for dick lugar. i think he has a good point and joe biden has a good point. we have to do several things simultaneously. we have to try to do as much as we can as best we can. that's what the president is doing. senator, thank you so much. stand by, if you can. we're going to go to the white house where robert gibbs is outlining the strategy. >> a good portion of the president's speech tomorrow will discuss our relationship with pakistan and touch ongoing back to the very beginning of this administration in a renewed engagement diplomatically with the afghanistan nations. to address violent extremism. i think our relationship is stronger and our efforts are

stronger in dealing with that. as a result of that engagement in diplomacy. the president will build on that and talk about the importance of them in the region tomorrow night. >> we're going to talk about benchmarks tomorrow night? >> i'll let the president make a little news tomorrow. i anticipate the president will be clear about how we are moving forward with afghanistan and pakistan. >> how much has he talked with the officials in pakistan? >> the president is on the list and will be called either -- there is scheduling flux whether later today or first thing tomorrow. we'll have some clarity on that. >> in coming up with what he's going to say? >> look, i think -- i don't remember the last time or don't have in front of me the last time the president spoke

directly with him, but i know many of the national security team, secretary of state clinton visited not too long ago and others have made trips to pakistan and throughout the region to strengthen the diplomatic task. yes, sir. >> thanks, robert. how specific will the president be about an exit strategy and how specific will he be about costs? >> well, i think the president will reiterate tomorrow what i have said a number of times, which is this is not an open-ended -- in this is not an open ended commitment that we are there to partner with the afghans, to train the afghan national security forces, the army and police so they can provide security for their

country and wage a battle against an unpopular insurgency in that country. that's first and foremost our primary mission. >> you said last week, i think wednesday, that you wouldn't be there in eight or nine years. will the president spell that out as a timetable tomorrow as to when troops will leave? >> we don't want to get too far ahead of where the president is. you can be assured the president will talk about the fact this is not an open ended commitment. >> will he talk about, you have given us figures before what it costs per soldier. will he talk about how it will be paid for and a war tax? >> i have not heard extensive discussion of that here. i know the president will touch on costs. i don't expect to get overly details in the speech tomorrow. yes, sir. >> when more troops are sent in to the country, inevitably, it

results in more casualties in a military presence and fighting is increased. is the president going to -- is that going to be part of the president's message to prepare the american people that while an exit strategy exists, the next year or two is perhaps going to be bloodier than the last six months? >> we have discussed this before. i think the amount of sacrifice that we have seen from the men and women we have there already is something that i know the president is assured by each and every day. i think, you know, he signs letters of condolence, he meets with the families of those that have been killed. obviously the trip to dover is

something that i doubt you ever truly forget. i think the president will reiterate the importance of why we are there, but also, by all means, early on acknowledge the tremendous cost and sacrifice to our men and women in uniform. i don't think there's any doubt we are all in awe of the commitment from our military and civilian side in order to get this right. >> just in terms of defining our terms, where does making sure we have a stable afghan partner and nation building begin? what's the line? is it just a question of our responsibility, u.s. responsibility training afghan troops? that's the safe and secure part? is partner part? because we have heard a lot

about what the u.s. intends to do and i know you don't want to get ahead of the president's speech, if you could define the terms for us. >> well, i guess i would more ask you to -- i don't -- i'm unclear as to what continue yum you are putting. are you asking me to put them on a certain -- >> well, the president has said about the new strategy that it's important we have a secure, stable ally in the afghan -- >> and a partner that is ssh and a partner that understands as the president drerktly told president karzai it's time to turn -- it's time for a new chapter in our relationship as it relates to corruption and improved governance in order to address the security situation,

not just through training and security force needs, but also, look, it's hard for civilians to go in and improve areas. it's impossible, that aren't secure. i would say this is all part of what has to be a partnership. i think anybody would tell you, jake, that -- that -- i have said this and quite frn kly, you have seen it from democrats and republicans in congress. without partners that are willing to do stuff in both afghanistan and pakistan, no number of american troops can solve all of those problems. unless, or until those steps are taken inside both of those countries will we see a change in the security situation. >> a stable partner meaning a

partner willing to have its own troops step up. it doesn't mean a thriving economy or great economy or schools for girls or human rights. >> first and foremost, we have to have a partner that can identify, recruit, retain security force and a police force that are able to take improved security environment and eventually hold that area. once that area is cleared, that area has to be held. ultimately, the strike thategy e the transfer the security responsibility to the afghans. that is a big part of what you will hear the president talk about tomorrow. >> that's what we want from the afghan government? >> that's a big part of it, yes. >> back to the war tax. you said the president isn't likely to get into detail on how

to pay for it tomorrow night? why not? why don't the american people deserve an explanation? >> i don't think you heard me say they don't deserve an explanation. >> why won't he get into it. >> he'll touch on it. it's not the beginning, nor will it be the end of it. the president will acknowledge the resource requirements and the responsibilities and trade offs that are going to have to be discussed here and more importantly on capitol hill as they control the pursestrings. >> how will he handle it? a new tax? >> i think those discussions, once the president has a policy and can put a price tag on it, i think you will see it more in earnest. >> let me ask about the state dinner with india. the white house asked the secret service to investigate the incident, what went wrong. will they be reviewing what the

secret service did or white house staff and the secretary's office to see whether they made mistakes at all? >> i will check will folks here. my understanding is the secret service will look at what the secret service did. >> do you think the white house staff should be looked at? they said they should be checking names. it's not the responsibility of the secret service. >> understand the individuals listed were not on a list. the secret service, through the director has admitted that somebody who wasn't on a list and wasn't waved in was allowed into an event that clearly he said shouldn't be. and that no call or reach out ever came to anybody in terms of staff from the secret service about whether or not there was

confusion on a name on a list. >> previous dinners, white house staff was there checking names. if they had been there, they might have caught that. >> again, i assume in absence of somebody being there, because they are working telephones in the white house, somebody might have checked, again, i think the focus of the investigation, at this point is on the fact that that name wasn't on a list. that name wasn't waved in. that couple got into the white house and i think that's what the secret service is rightly focused on in their security investigation. >> normally, in the past, before this administration come, there was checks and balances type of system with the social office. >> that's what ed just asked. >> that's what i'm saying. >> is this a follow up -- go ahead. sorry, i don't mean to interrupt. >> again, there's benefit a

series of checks and balances. they lay it back to back and forth between the social office. >> what i'm saying -- >> let me finish. >> i think the question was asked. let me reiterate my answer. again, none of that relay happened. right? none of that relay happened between the secret service. whether or not they were standing at the gate or sitting in their office at the white house. >> if you would allow me to finish, you could understand what i'm saying. >> it did not happen because that person was omitted at the gate. the way we understand -- >> omit snd. >> that person was fired earlier in the year. >> again -- you can ask it seven ways. the answer continues to be the relay didn't happen because somebody was or wasn't there. nobody picked up the phone to relay the information. i appreciate the observation

that somebody could or could not have been at a gate. you could pick up the phone like i could pick up a phone and relay you. you don't have to stand in my office. >> are you saying the social office does not have any responsibility? >> it's an investigation that's ongoing into the actions of what happened. i'm going to wait for that to be completed. >> while we are questioning the social office and the secret service. in the past, both worked in conjunction and were able to protect the president of the united states. because the social office didn't have that other layer of checks and balances there it happened. people are questioning why the white house is not putting it on the social office as well. >> i'm going to let them put the investigation on it. i'm explaning to you a series of facts that include the notion that if somebody was confused about whether or not somebody was on a list at a guard tower

on the exterior perimeter of the white house and there was a question, generally somebody could pick up the phone and ask. i'm saying that the secret service, in a statement they released a few days ago, acknowledged that didn't happen and that was a mistake. >> will processes be changed? will the social office be there? >> we are going to go through the investigation. i would refer you to is secret service about operations that might change. >> people were saying the president was never in danger and many are saying that is not true. they got in -- people here, secret service. these people met with the president. they shook the president's hand. who is to say they did not have some kind of -- granted they didn't. hypothetically, what if a person walked in and did something to the president. >> i appreciate the opportunity

to indulge in a grand hypothetical. i think the president shares the concern that the director has for how this happened and how we can remedy it from happening aga again. >> is he concerned about his safety with this? >> no. >> is he angry that people could walk into the white house like that? >> i think the president -- look, the reason there's an investigation is the president and the white house asked for that to happen. suffice to say, the president is rightly concerned about what happened last week. >> have you actually heard him say anything? >> i have not heard him say anything. it's been relayed to me. it's not a power bestoued upon me. as the press secretary, according to media reports they have been interviewed by the secret service. it's a decision that is made by

the secret service and the attorney in that area. >> i have a triple flow up. the social office knows that list inside and out. presumab presumably, if someone would have been in the gate -- >> the follow up answer i gave to april -- >> no, listen to me. >> they would have overheard the couple announce themselves. it wouldn't have require add phone call. they would have flagged it right away. >> if the couple wouldn't have come, it wouldn't require a phone call. i understand. generally, when people have questions, cheryl when you have a question, april, when you have a question, i don't have to be there in person to answer the question. generally, you can pick up the phone and reach me in my office. a procedure somebody could do sitting at a gate at the white house as they could sitting in the briefing room.

>> obviously, the secret service didn't have questions. a second lay er of checking -- >> beside the fact that didn't happen. >> are you concerned or is the white house going to do what's necessary to make sure the secrete service is not scapegoated here and there could be responsibility at the white house? >> of course. th that's why there's an investigation. >> you seem to put the blame toward the secret service. >> i'm reiterating the three questions on got on the subject. chip, i have walked with and been next to the secret service for the two and a half years, virtually every single day that the president has had the valuable and brave protection of the secret service. nobody, nobody is more thankful

for that than the president, as well as the country. the president has faith in the secret service, always has, and that's not about to change. >> change the subject for a second? >> we will go to chuck and maybe somebody will -- >> let me start with afghanistan. in the march 27th speech, some of this -- some of the things he said in the march 27th speech sound like what you are previewing now, said benchmarked for afghanistan, we cannot turn a blind eye to the core runs that causes afghans to lose faith in their own leader. sets clear benchmarks, clear metric for international assistance. he said going forward, we will not blindly stay the course and said we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. >> right. >> how much of that march 27th speech going to be very applicable to what we hear tomorrow? >> well, look, we were asked in the lead up to the security forces decision in march about whether there would be bench marks. that answer then was yes, and

the answer now is yes. obviously, as it relates to -- >> changing essentially or -- finish setting the benchmark? >> no we finished setting the benchmarks, but again, we are -- not to get ahead of what the president announces but i think there will be some new wrinkles to what we are doing. >> there have been benchmarks this whole time? >> yes. as were reported to congress. absolutely. in terms of the corruption and the governance, obviously when you mention the -- >> re-election, i understand that same government though. >> well, somewhat up in the air as of the middle of august, right. >> so but -- i guess the thing is that how -- what -- what is going to be different about what he says from than what he said on march 27th? like you just have new wrinkles to some of this stuff? >> i will let the president outline what the mission is going forward and discuss in

depth the benchmarks that will go along with it. >> and can you get into the -- i mean is the president going to try to simultaneously assure folks that we are going to withdraw troops in a timely fashion and let allies know we are there for the long haul? how do you -- is that a balance he is going to try to strike? >> well, i think nobody should underestimate the commitment of a president that has thus far doubled the number of american men and women on the ground in afghanistan. i don't -- i don't think anybody could look themselves in the mirror with a straight face and say that this president hasn't in any way been anything but resolved to doing what has to happen in afghanistan to make this country safe. >> really quickly, does the president think there should be charges filed against these folks to set an example? >> i mean, does he want them to

have somehow some sort of punishment? >> i have not talked to president on that again, the white house would leave that up to relevant law enforcement to determine whether -- >> used as a reality tv show. >> well, i think the concern goes greatly beyond the "real housewives of d.c.," but, yes. john? i think we have spanned the gamut gone from afghanistan now i just said "the real housewives of d.c." >> you said. >> i know, commentary on my life. >> on the benchmarks issue, talk about benchmarks for success, talking about, you know, training of afghan security forces, stability, corruption of the government, but are there also benchmarks for failure and consequences for not reaching those benchmarks? >> well, i don't know the -- >> in other words, will u.s.

forces be withdrawn if these benchmarks can't be met? >> again, i'm going to let the president outline the bench marks. i think what the president believes is we will be setting forward a mission that he believes can be attained. i think part of that is we have to look at, again, jonathan, the president will look at what that mission is and make sure that what we are doing is setting out a mission and a series of resources that are -- that are attainable. as i mentioned to chuck a minute ago there are now twice as many forces there than were there just a year ago. i think what the president has to do clearly with the american people is let them know that we now have what's need there had to

-- need there had to accomplish what that mission is rather than assuming we could do it with half of what is there now. >> one quick housekeeping question, the reporters going up to west point tomorrow with the press -- with the president, will have a whole lot of time up there. are there going to be briefings up there or anything available to us? >> i think we will do a briefing by phone. if you are on the press charter or not to take part in. >> and as robert gibbs now talks about some of the details, some of the logistics of tomorrow's speech, we are here with senator evan bayh. congress is going to be briefed tomorrow before the speech is delivered, allies briefed before the speech today it, a big part of this is pakistan. one of the interesting reports over the weekend is president zadari in pakistan is turning over authority for the nuclear codes to the military, the pakistani military, with whom the u.s. has been working more and more closely.

there is an effort in the president's speech, we are told to reach out to pakistan to reassure pakistan. how important is that part of the speech? >> it is vitally important, andrea. one of the things your viewers should know is that our forces are incredibly competent but ultimately at the it end of this, it is not up to us it is up to them, both the afghans and the pakistanis. both of them have to do their part if this is going to have a successful conclusion and they have got some real issues on both sides of that border. so you know it is a process of working with them but encoura encouraging them to do better at what they need to do. >> do you have any concerns in the armed services committee that the leadtimes that the generals are predicting to get the afghan army up to speed and have this transfer and obviously the exit strategies dependent upon that are they being overly optimistic about the aof the afghan troops to meet that level? >> i have some questions about that if the iraqi experience is any indication, i remember don rumsfeld and the generals saying they have x-hundreds of thousands of soldiers and by six

month from now, x-number hundreds of thousands more, it never happened. i think you have to be mod nest your expectations that part of the world, standing up their army, improving their police forces, just as important is probably going to take longer than we would like, you have to be a little modest about making hard and fast predictions about that. >> and just while we have been on the air and while robert gibbs has been talking, senator, there was a yacht, a british yacht, and apparently iranian authorities have detained the crew of a british yacht. we have been through this drama before with previous episodes a couple of years ago, but that will be something we will all be watching as well. senator evan bayh, thank you very much for standing with us. >> great to be with you. i even got to hear a little bit about "the real housewives of d.c." who would have thought? >> who would have thought the connection between robert gibbs, the real housewives, the white house state dinner and afghanistan. thank you very much. >> take care. >> i'm andrea mitchell in washington today. contessa brewer picks up our coverage next on msnbc, the place for politics.

there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, 69,000 people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers. i just want fewer pills and relief that lasts all day.

take 2 extra strength tylenol every 4 to 6 hours?!? taking 8 pills a day... and if i take it for 10 days -- that's 80 pills. just 2 aleve can last all day. perfect. choose aleve and you can be taking four times... fewer pills than extra strength tylenol. just 2 aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day. the sparkly flakes. the honey-baked bunches! the magic's in the mix. my favorite part? eating it. honey bunches of oats. taste the joy we put in every spoonful. honey bunches of oats. we call the bunches in honey bunches of oats the prize in the box. well, now there's a prize inside the prize. pecans! pecans! baked into crunchy oat bunches. taste the delicious surprise in every spoonful. new honey bunches of oats with pecan bunches. beautiful.